China and Taiwan

Sorry for being so late in reply, I got caught up in otherstuff. But anyways, I just want to continue on this discussion. It is true when in the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American, Japanese and French ships passing the island, these governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory." This is however as I explained earlier, the work of the remnants of Ming Dynasty troops resisting the Qing Dynasty. The Ming dynasty towards the end was strongly against outsiders, hence the defeat of the Dutch by a Ming dynasty admiral. At the time, the Chinese Emperor was trying to pacify an internal rebellion, then keeping the Mongolians in check. And so, it was not until 1881 (?, check earlier post) that the Qing finally managed to regain control. Before the use of force however, Emperor Kangxi had used diplomatic and mediation talks, pretty much on the same terms which the PRC today demands of Taiwan. As for the right to start a war, it is the individual right of every country to seek to maintain its sovernighty, to the point of force. If Taiwan would agree to drop independence, {by the way, again, the treaty between the Republic of China and Japan DOES NULLIFY the TREATY OF SHIMONOSEKI, (Article 4 of the Treaty does, however, abrogate all agreements between China and Japan concluded before 9 December 1941. This would include the Shimonoseki Treaty and would implicitly nullify the cession of Formosa to Japan) http://www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm)}, then the issue of war would be gone. Autonomy along the lines of Hong Kong would be granted. In the end, it is Taiwan who is keeping the chance of war very likely, not the PRC. Take any country into perspective, if a province (i.e California or the current conflict in chechnya) was to secede, would,'t America or Russia is currently, use force of arms to maintain the unity?

kounter wrote:

Sorry for being so late in reply, I got caught up in otherstuff. But anyways, I just want to continue on this discussion. It is true when in the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American, Japanese and French ships passing the island, these governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory." This is however as I explained earlier, the work of the remnants of Ming Dynasty troops resisting the Qing Dynasty. The Ming dynasty towards the end was strongly against outsiders, hence the defeat of the Dutch by a Ming dynasty admiral. At the time, the Chinese Emperor was trying to pacify an internal rebellion, then keeping the Mongolians in check. And so, it was not until 1881 (?, check earlier post) that the Qing finally managed to regain control. Before the use of force however, Emperor Kangxi had used diplomatic and mediation talks, pretty much on the same terms which the PRC today demands of Taiwan. As for the right to start a war, it is the individual right of every country to seek to maintain its sovernighty, to the point of force. If Taiwan would agree to drop independence, {by the way, again, the treaty between the Republic of China and Japan DOES NULLIFY the TREATY OF SHIMONOSEKI, (Article 4 of the Treaty does, however, abrogate all agreements between China and Japan concluded before 9 December 1941. This would include the Shimonoseki Treaty and would implicitly nullify the cession of Formosa to Japan) http://www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm)}, then the issue of war would be gone. Autonomy along the lines of Hong Kong would be granted. In the end, it is Taiwan who is keeping the chance of war very likely, not the PRC. Take any country into perspective, if a province (i.e California or the current conflict in chechnya) was to secede, would,'t America or Russia is currently, use force of arms to maintain the unity?

Kounter, good to hear from you. As always I enjoy chatting on the subject with you as yours have been intelligent and polite posts, thank you.

It seems we move back to the legal, rather than discuss what can be done facing the realities such as public opinion from both Taiwan and China, but OK, however I don't think there is a way to reach a consensus and anyone reading this thread would be sure of only one thing, that enough ambiguity exists to invalidate the claim of the PRC that they have right to use force to end the dispute.

Making comments on your post. Like the Treaty of San Francisco, the Treaty of Taipei did not explicitly grant sovereignty of Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC, or anyone for that matter and yes it also nullified all previous treaties made between China and Japan, implicitly repealing the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

But this supports the theory that the sovereignty of Taiwan was returned to the people of Taiwan when Japan renounced sovereignty of Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) in 1951, based on the policy of self-determination which has been applied to "territories which detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War" as defined by article 76b and 77b of the United Nations Charter and also by the protocol of the Yalta Conference.

thanks Michael for the compliment, I too truly enjoy this discussion as well. Okay, if we were to move the legal issues of who is right and wrong off hte board, we can actually see three parties involved. There is the PRC, the ROC and the Native Taiwanese. Why the PRC is so adamant about using force is the threat that American may use Taiwan as a leverage board against China by stationing troops there(I'm not sure if there is any troops already there, I don't think so).

As for self-determination, as the ROC currently holds power over the island, the new Republic of Taiwan would merely be a another name for a potentially hostile country on the very doorsteps of China.

Alone, Taiwan would not dream of Invasion but with America, it is a differant story. If this threat was far removed, China would have less cause to try and recover Taiwan. Moreover, the PRC remembers the short period of the Republic where social living standards and conditions were worse off than under Imperial rule. Sixty years is a short time for scars of a nation to disappear and China does NOT want another internal civil war. BACK REPLY LATER

kounter wrote:

thanks Michael for the compliment, I too truly enjoy this discussion as well. Okay, if we were to move the legal issues of who is right and wrong off hte board, we can actually see three parties involved. There is the PRC, the ROC and the Native Taiwanese. Why the PRC is so adamant about using force is the threat that American may use Taiwan as a leverage board against China by stationing troops there(I'm not sure if there is any troops already there, I don't think so).

No not officially, and any that are would be in very small numbers, mostly spies. If you like have a read on this Spook mountain. The major force is in Japan and South Korea. Also I agree stategically, Taiwan is very importantly located.

kounter wrote:

As for self-determination, as the ROC currently holds power over the island, the new Republic of Taiwan would merely be a another name for a potentially hostile country on the very doorsteps of China.

Well I have not really mentioned , but this seems the appropriate time. Neither the ROC or the PRC were given sovereignty over Taiwan, the ROC was given the right to temporarily hold Taiwan area in trust. But I don't see Taiwan as being hostile to China, Taiwan has economically tied itself to China, which is a trend likely to continue.

kounter wrote:

Alone, Taiwan would not dream of Invasion but with America, it is a differant story. If this threat was far removed, China would have less cause to try and recover Taiwan. Moreover, the PRC remembers the short period of the Republic where social living standards and conditions were worse off than under Imperial rule. Sixty years is a short time for scars of a nation to disappear and China does NOT want another internal civil war. BACK REPLY LATER

I certainly see what you are saying. In my view, right now, the most likely cause for some misunderstanding or provocing action is to come from the Taiwan side. I'm sure you read the news and are aware the government here is being accused of all kinds of corruption, in such an environment using the China/Taiwan issue becomes a way for the politicains to divert attention.

Unfortunately, China has limited Taiwans options. Certainly the terms and conditions are simple, but an unwise policy. I should first say, that over the past few years the Chinese government I believe has been handling the Taiwan/China issue much better than the Taiwan side, they have shown restraint with the notable and unfortunate passing of their anti cessation law.

China has insisted that before any negotiation may take place the Taiwan side must first agree that "there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of that one China" the two sides may disagree on what that one China is. This effectively cuts off any chance of negotiation, forces Taiwan into a very dangerous corner, China could quite easily drop this requirment without loosing anything that they claim, just defusing the situation , the cards are in Chinas hand and it is up to them to show some maturity.

Why will Taiwan not agree to the statement "there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of that one China". Becuase this is the end game of a negotiation with China acheiving its goal, once Taiwan agrees to this , it is only a short time before handover. If this is agreed to , Taiwan are giving up the right for self determination.

In short China's position is surrender or be invaded and there will be no negotiation. I'm saying they should open the dorr for negotiation and take the edge off the situation.

Thats kinda true, but if China doesn't first force down this point, then negotiations would be held in semi-legal status for Taiwan, also implying that it is a soverign nation. By making this point first, it can establish the set rule that negotiations are made in anyother fashion apart from nation to nation basis. This is also a ploy to deter America and other countries from supporting taiwan.

... President Chen, if you have followed in the news has been embroiled in so much scandal that not only have the vast majority of Taiwanese called for him to step down , large numbers of his own party have also done so.

Chen legacy is one of a corrupt president. One wo has contributed nothing to Taiwan, who during his tenure has seen the stock market decline, unemployment rise, relations with the US at an all time low. He has a year and 10 months or so left, against the wishes of the majority of Taiwan he will push for a new constitution and renaming the country to ensure his legacy.

kounter wrote:

Thats kinda true, but if China doesn't first force down this point, then negotiations would be held in semi-legal status for Taiwan, also implying that it is a soverign nation. By making this point first, it can establish the set rule that negotiations are made in anyother fashion apart from nation to nation basis. This is also a ploy to deter America and other countries from supporting taiwan.

Yes, one must understand that China wishes not to encourage legitimacy by entering negotiations on a nation to nation basis, It could be argued that his is just as much a concession as Taiwan agreeing to enter negotiations under the one China principle.

If one puts aside the differences in the two sides arguments for a moment and look to the future in a way which would be to have a peaceful resolution as the most important factor.

Although having so far in this thread always argued from the Taiwan side, I feel like I must almost play the devils advocate here. President Chen, if you have followed in the news has been embroiled in so much scandal that not only have the vast majority of Taiwanese called for him to step down , large numbers of his own party have also done so.

Chen legacy is one of a corrupt president. One wo has contributed nothing to Taiwan, who during his tenure has seen the stock market decline, unemployment rise, relations with the US at an all time low. He has a year and 10 months or so left, against the wishes of the majority of Taiwan he will push for a new constitution and renaming the country to ensure his legacy. How will the Government in China respond?

Sometimes the best way to act is to be proactive. If you can predict what will be coming , take the wind out of Chens sails , only the Chinese government can do this. They would need to concede some card, but they have all the cards, and still don't need to concede much.

China would love to take the wind out of Chen, in fact they would like to do it literally. However, if they intervene, publicly at least, Chen gets all the ammo he needs to jump on stage both at home and internationally to declare that China is meddling in its internal affairs and *perverting* the course of democracy. Thus, it is up to the Taiwanese population to get rid of Chen themselves.

kounter wrote:

China would love to take the wind out of Chen, in fact they would like to do it literally. However, if they intervene, publicly at least, Chen gets all the ammo he needs to jump on stage both at home and internationally to declare that China is meddling in its internal affairs and *perverting* the course of democracy. Thus, it is up to the Taiwanese population to get rid of Chen themselves.

I certainly see what you are saying, it seems for the moment there is unlikely to be progress until after the 2008 elections. I cant see the DPP agreeing to China's "one China" precondition of talks, and I can't see the DPP being able to pass anything provocative to China through the legislative yuan which is KMT crontolled.

China's demand that Taiwan accept "one China" as a precondition to talks, may in retrospect have been a terrible mistake, I think China realizes this (they shot themseves in the foot), but now its in the open there's no way to take it back. The Chinese people would see this as too much of a conssesion perhaps.

The only party to benifit from this precondition is the DPP (Taiwan independance party).

China, has removed itself from the negotiating table. In a democracy, political parties need to have their voices heard, and to be debated in public.

The KMT's stupid claim that Taiwan is the legitimate government of China and therefore they can accept to talk under the "one china" but different interpretations , is ripped to pieces by the DPP, who ridicule this for the farce it is.

One would hope that after the 2008 elections, things may improve. But this would depend on Ma or another from the KMT winning the elections.

If there is one issue that will cause the KMT to loose the electons more than any other, it is China's insistance on talks being resumed under the "one china" principle. The DPP will use this to maximum effect.

So you see, while I understand the difficulty, China is already making life difficult for themselves. They can modify policies such as the insistance of resumtion of talks being only under the condition that Taiwan agrees to "one China", it would even look like a little victory for the DPP. In reality, both they and the KMT would be the real winners.

It all really depends on the mood of each party. Chen is just trying to divert any and all attention from his other political issues (note; he has become more vocal on the independence issue recently), the KMT is probably unwilling to let go of their original goals, set down by Dr Sun Yat-sen (Great Man ), and China is just worried about the Olympics. I've got a hunch that Chen will declare independence in 2008, probably during the Olympics. Seeing that its usually a period without war, if China doesn't act immediatley, international support may grow in that period of inactivity. If China does act, it'll attract criticism not to mention loss of moral highground. Perhaps this policy of 'One China' talks is one way of keeping a rein on Chen, reminding him that China isn't going to negotiate on that. Letting negtiations go ahead without keeping this policy as a precondition can be seen as a sign of weakness, and give Chen greater confidence in the event of declaring independence. But we'll have to see in 2008.

kounter wrote:

It all really depends on the mood of each party. Chen is just trying to divert any and all attention from his other political issues (note; he has become more vocal on the independence issue recently), the KMT is probably unwilling to let go of their original goals, set down by Dr Sun Yat-sen (Great Man ), and China is just worried about the Olympics. I've got a hunch that Chen will declare independence in 2008, probably during the Olympics. Seeing that its usually a period without war, if China doesn't act immediatley, international support may grow in that period of inactivity. If China does act, it'll attract criticism not to mention loss of moral highground. Perhaps this policy of 'One China' talks is one way of keeping a rein on Chen, reminding him that China isn't going to negotiate on that. Letting negtiations go ahead without keeping this policy as a precondition can be seen as a sign of weakness, and give Chen greater confidence in the event of declaring independence. But we'll have to see in 2008.

It's not so easy as that. One needs to look at the realities, Chen can't just get up and declare independence and it is so.

Firstly, Taiwan already has de facto independence, the move Chen made recently is to ammend the ROC (Taiwan) constitution, to basically write China out of it completely. This is seen as the first step towards de jure independence. While this is seen by the PRC (China) as the line which must not be crossed and ammounts to a declaration of independence, since the legislative yuan is KMT controlled and must be first approved by them, this has no chance of being passed and Chen knows it (and China knows it too, which is why they have a mild reaction), hes just trying to build up a bit of support from his die hard supporters.

If this could be taken to the nation in the form of referendum, is still less certian, but in this case, the majority of Taiwanese are quite aware this amounts to a declaration of war and again would likely only get no more than 20% from the die hard independents. But what is sure Chen getting up and saying what he likes amounts to not much. He is a lame duck president.

One must also remember. Americas stance, and that of pretty much the rest of the world is that they do not support Taiwan independence, and they do not support any unilateral change by either side (which is aimed more at Taiwan than China recently). Even a change in the constitution to change Taiwans status from de facto to de jure independence will not get them admitted to the UN (since China can veto the motion), its unlikely to change anything.

In other words, China doesn't need to make threats every time a politician here is trying to beef up their local support, they hold all the cards, they have international support, they can economically hold Taiwan hostage. Such actions only provide ammunition to the TI's, and in this respect China has been very shrewd in the past 4 or 5 years.

The lack of vision on the part of the DPP, who made so many promises and now after 6 years in power is becoming quite apparent to the people of Taiwan. The one China prerequisite, may indeed be the bottom line, alowing talks without this precondition, doesn't mean China is changing its bottom line, but could at least make discussion about "how" Taiwan and China might co-exist. Much may be very resonable, and attractive to the Taiwanese, who also don't want to live under the constant threat of war. But none of that can be discussed, while the precondition exists, which the TI's have convinced the people is a handover uncontionally to China.

Michael

This guy puts forward that Taiwan is in fact still under US jurisdiction, legally. I warn you first this is quite a long article and would be to comapre a PHD students work against Pragmatic's version of history written earlier which would be Kindergarden level.

Any thoughts?

Michael_S wrote:

This guy puts forward that Taiwan is in fact still under US jurisdiction, legally. I warn you first this is quite a long article and would be to comapre a PHD students work against Pragmatic's version of history written earlier which would be Kindergarden level.

Any thoughts?

Yes, just one. Just because I haven't been on this thread for a while, doesn't mean that you can resort to insulting me behind my back.

Very nice, I like his reasoning. However, speaking realisticly, unless America wants a complete war with not only China but also Taiwan, it had better not follow this claim. He does follow the conventions that miltary occupation is not valid, and that it requires a specific authority i.e Instrument of Surrender to make it valid. His assertion that the ROC was merely a subordiante Occupying Power is not correct. The ROC was considered a fully soverign power at the time, and one could argue that the surrender was taken by an ally, America. but again, no matter what happens, America is in no position to back a claim of soverignty on the island. As for what the hell china can do to ease relations, how about what the hell can Taiwan do.

kounter wrote:

Very nice, I like his reasoning. However, speaking realisticly, unless America wants a complete war with not only China but also Taiwan, it had better not follow this claim. He does follow the conventions that miltary occupation is not valid, and that it requires a specific authority i.e Instrument of Surrender to make it valid. His assertion that the ROC was merely a subordiante Occupying Power is not correct. The ROC was considered a fully soverign power at the time, and one could argue that the surrender was taken by an ally, America. but again, no matter what happens, America is in no position to back a claim of soverignty on the island. As for what the hell china can do to ease relations, how about what the hell can Taiwan do.

Well, it seems we may get to find out what the US thinks of the claim since it is now a lawsuit. http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tforumtw.htm

It seems that the federal court in Washington D.C. has accepted the case, and the U.S. Attorney General has until late December 2006 to reply.

By the way, because the ROC was considered a fully soverign power at the time is not the reason for stating that they were subordiante Occupying Power .

During the course of the Pacific War, the historical record shows that all military attacks against Japanese Formosa & the Pescadores, and indeed against the four main Japanese islands, were conducted by United States military forces. The United States is the "conqueror."

In Taiwan, the military forces under Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) accepted the Japanese surrender on behalf of the Allies.

The US is noted in the San Fransico peace treaty as the principle occupying power.